Sig Sauer completed the test in concert with Israel Aerospace Industries, maker of the Fire Storm 250, a reusable drone that can stay airborne for two hours and is designed with a stabilized machine-gun mount.

According to a Tuesday announcement from the companies, the test required the system to hover over a simulated battlefield, ID targets with an onboard camera and fire on them using both single-shot and semi-automatic firing modes “from varying distances and altitudes.”

It’s a fast development timeline for the drone, which was first unveiled last October. The defense publication Janes reported in February that flight tests for the system were scheduled for summer 2026. The system, as Janes reported, incorporates Sig’s micro-remote-controlled weapon system along with the M250, a version of which is set to replace the Army’s M249 squad automatic weapon as part of the service’s Next-Generation Squad Weapon program.

According to Tuesday’s announcement, the system can carry 200 rounds of ammunition and the 53-pound RCWS. It can take off and land vertically, lending itself to operation in austere forward locations.

“Sensor information and fire-control data are combined into a unified targeting solution, giving the operator a continuous operational picture and supporting a rapid sensor-to-shooter cycle,” the companies said.

An internal combustion engine can accept a variety of jet fuels, allowing the drone to be reused in the field, per the Janes report. It’s designed, according to the company, to accompany tactical units “with limited manpower and support requirements.”

While it’s previously been reported that the system incorporates artificial intelligence to automate components of tracking and detection, the companies emphasized its human-in-the-loop fire control system, allowing human operators to make engagement and fire decisions while receiving imagery and tracking data from the Fire Storm 250’s onboard sensors.

“FIRE STORM 250 brings together the most advanced technologies in the world,” Sali Okanin, Israel General Manager for SIG SAUER, said in an announcement. “We’re proud of the new SIG SAUER M250, which is combat-proven technology. It is a belt-fed platform with greater range than legacy systems and weight savings that not only provide squad-level benefits but also make drone capabilities possible.”

Sig Sauer executives told Military Times earlier this month that fielding for the M250 is expected to begin in the first half of next year. While the Army’s version of the weapon is chambered in Sig Sauer’s internally developed 6.8X51mm ammo, the Israel Defense Forces began using a 7.62X51mm variant in 2025. The Fire Storm 250 reportedly can carry either.

Under the new brand, the Texas-based defense firm debuted Primex, a lightweight wearable meant to provide soldiers with night-vision capabilities and augmented reality so they can “maintain awareness without distraction or cognitive overload.”

For the design, Twenty-Six Defense said it engineered Primex for sustained operational use by equipping it with “the lightest head-borne load and near-neutral center of gravity.”

The company explained Primex uses low-light sensors, thermal imagery, and real-time processing to produce an ultra-low-latency digital perception that enables operators to better interpret the surrounding area even amid challenging environmental conditions.

What separates Primex from other advanced lightweight heads-up display units for operators, according to Twenty-Six Defense, is that its design was built on mature technologies that have already been fielded.

The company said it already produces AN/PSQ-44 Enhanced Night Vision Goggles, which contain features that allow for rapid target acquisition and augment reality to enhance visual clarity.

In August, Ernie Basic, Twenty-Six Defense’s senior director of research and development, explained how his company was developing equipment for the Soldier Borne Mission Command, a project to deliver augmented reality wearables to soldiers.

He said the technology combines fighter-pilot displays with night-vision systems, so soldiers get “the full operational picture.”

“You are not only seeing what is in front of you. You can leverage a feed coming from a drone or from other assets,” he said. “You can start seeing what is going on behind a house or another structure, cue a squad to a different location, and continuously update them.”

In addition to Primex, Twenty-Six Defense showcased defensive weapons and equipment like the XM1168 mobile 120mm mortar system, Autonomous Relocatable Surveillance Tower and SkyStriker Block 4E.

The defense giant unveiled the PAC-3 Edge this Friday and debuted it at the Association of the U.S. Army’s annual meeting in Washington, D.C., today.

“This missile is capable of being launched from the traditional M903 launcher. It’s capable of being launched from the containerized launchers that are being sought after domestically and internationally, as well as our HIMARS FLEX, which is the offense and defense configuration of our traditional HIMARS vehicle,” Jason Reynolds, vice president and general manager of Lockheed Martin Missiles and Fire Control Integrated Air and Missile Defense, told Defense News.

Lockheed in January announced a seven-year framework agreement to increase annual PAC-3 interceptor production from approximately 600 to 2,000.

Designed to defend against hypersonic and advanced missile threats, the unveiling of the PAC-3 Edge comes as the U.S. military’s reliance on costly interceptors against cheap munitions, particularly those deployed by Iran during Operation Epic Fury, has come under increased scrutiny over the past eight months.

The new PAC-3 Edge missile builds on the foundations of the PAC-3 MSE, Lockheed’s baseline missile, and pushes its abilities farther.

The Edge system is longer and features a larger diameter, increasing its range.

“It also goes higher in altitude and has more agility. It has attitude control motors, which are located near the front of the missile and basically divert the missile in flight,” Reynolds explained. “This has additional attitude control motors that give it additional agility.”

While the PAC-3 MSE uses a two-pulse solid rocket motor to speedily approach moving targets, the new system has multi-pulse motor designed by Northrop Grumman.

“It has a third pulse to the motor, so that means the motor will fire three times during its flight, giving it additional agility to kill the target,” Reynolds said.

The weapon is designed not only for unprecedented maneuverability but to be easily integrated with both present and future missile defense networks. It is compatible with Northrop’s Integrated Battle Command System, or IBCS, a command-and-control network the Army uses to mesh air and missile defense sensors into a central hub.

The company intends to begin testing the PAC-3 Edge in 2027 and have it ready to deploy by 2031, although Lockheed aims to have it ready earlier, Reynolds added.

“The U.S. Army’s timeline is 2031. We, Lockheed Martin, are trying to pull that in and deliver this capability sooner, so around the turn of the decade,” he said.

The Nomad 100 fast pack fits four aircraft, mission-command software, power, communications and sustainment equipment inside one standard 20-foot shipping container, the company said in a release.

In its planned configuration, two of the aircraft can be mission ready in under 15 minutes, and the other two available within four to six hours, according to Sikorsky.

The system is designed to launch without a runway from sites such as naval vessels, tactical vehicle staging areas and improvised landing zones. After a mission, crews can repack the container, load it onto a compatible vehicle and move it to a new site.

Depending on how a customer configures it, the kit could support intelligence, surveillance, reconnaissance and targeting missions, as well as light attack and contested logistics, the company said.

Sikorsky said the U.S. military needs to rapidly expand its inventory of autonomous aircraft with compact systems that can be deployed, sustained and moved quickly in contested environments.

“By packaging aircraft, mission command, communications, power and sustainment into a single containerized system, we are making it easier to move, employ and reposition VTOL UAS capability with urgency and flexibility,” Rich Benton, Sikorsky’s vice president and general manager, said in the release.

The Nomad 100 has an 18-foot wingspan and is a Group 3 drone under the Defense Department’s classification system. It uses Sikorsky’s rotor blown wing design, which pairs a helicopter’s vertical lift and hover with the speed, range and endurance of a fixed-wing aircraft, and it flies with the company’s MATRIX autonomy software.

The company has not released the Nomad 100’s payload, range or endurance.

Sikorsky developed the aircraft with funding from the Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency, or DARPA, under its Early VTOL Aircraft Demonstration program, known as EVADE.

In July, Sikorsky said it had finished initial ground and flight testing of the Nomad 100 and would next put the drone through an intensive flight test campaign at a government facility. The company said DARPA chose MATRIX as the autonomy system for all five aircraft in the EVADE program.

Sikorsky introduced the Nomad family in October 2025, after an extended flight test of a smaller prototype, the Nomad 50, with a 10.3-foot wingspan.

Monday’s release did not say whether a fast pack has been built, or whether any military service has ordered or is evaluating one.

Demand for exquisite munitions has skyrocketed as conflicts in Iran and Ukraine — and an ever-tense Indo-Pacific — continue to redefine stockpile demand.

So, too, has there developed an insatiable market for cheap systems and interceptors capable of balancing scales that, in regions like the Middle East, have been encumbered by cost-per-kill ratios as lopsided as 114-1 — in the case of a PAC-3 interceptor versus a Shahed-136 drone.

If that weren’t enough to consider, there’s the lightning-quick speed of AI integration and unmanned systems into formations, and the reality of having to rethink a simple concept — hiding — that was seldom given a second thought due to the total air superiority of the Global War on Terror.

Such frenzied developments, meanwhile, come against a backdrop of new Pentagon policy that aims to eliminate the antiquated red tape of the acquisition process and speed development to the battlefield.

A daunting cluster of problems to solve, no doubt. But if encountering such a catalog of to-dos is stress-inducing, one would not know it when speaking to U.S. Army Under Secretary Mike Obadal, who finds himself at the center of many of these discussions.

From his office and out on the trail, Obadal oversees the service’s business operations, acquisition strategy, and manpower and personnel systems, among myriad other duties.

Obadal assumed the position after a stint in the private sector, which followed a military career that included time as a Special Operations officer, the status of Master Army Aviator and qualifications in nine different aircraft.

Obadal spoke to Military Times about how he and the Army are approaching these seismic shifts in warfighting philosophy, and how this year’s AUSA exposition reflects the blistering pace of innovation that catalyzes them.

There are many examples of individuals without military experience working in consequential positions within the Pentagon. You are not one. How has your military experience shaped how you approach this role?

What I try very hard to do is not let my experience drive the way I do things. I want it to inform the way I do things, whether that’s my experience working with the interagency and seeing how other executive branch agencies operate, my experience in the conventional military or in other parts of the military, doing joint work, working with partners and allies or going out into corporate America.

I don’t want any one of those things to be the driver of how I make decisions and conduct myself in the business of the Army, but I do want all of it to come together and inform it.

So, it’s certainly very helpful for me when I talk to soldiers or when I look at programs or weapon systems.

The biggest thing it helps me with is understanding that there’s no single weapon system that operates by itself anywhere. They are all part of a joint force, and within that, you have a maneuver Army that is reliant — tanks are reliant on infantry, infantry is reliant on fires, all of it is reliant on aviation, medical and logistics.

All those components work together as a chain, and you have to make sure every link in the chain is as strong as possible.

That’s one of the biggest things that I take away from being in the military: an understanding that all of these things have to work in synergy, and there are no easy solutions.

We continue to watch the conflicts in Ukraine and Iran unfold. What do you expect to see at an event like AUSA that reflects what America has learned from them?

If you walk around the hall at AUSA, it’ll give you a good indication of the Army’s priorities. Our priorities are reflected in what we’re procuring.

Going back several years, when we were in the Middle East and we first saw adversary drones — counter-drone systems became a really important topic. It kind of started in the special operations and then expanded into the larger Army.

Ukraine has not just reinforced that counter-UAS is a critical part of operations today; it’s cemented it.

So, if you walk around AUSA, you’re going to see an immense number of not only drones but also counter-UAS. That’s a reflection of the procurement and the budget, not just in the Army but in the Pentagon.

That’s number one. Number two is software. Being able to see, sense and integrate to understand what your positional advantage is, and understand the adversary and their vulnerabilities.

That’s just military operations, but today it’s looking at how we apply the best sensors and best software to bring all of that together to give decision advantage to our commanders.

The third one is fires, and when you look at current conflicts, the importance of long-range precision fires is highlighted.

So, what you’ll also see at the conference is a reflection of our investment portfolio in our magazine depth, but also the variety of munitions.

Expanding out the optionality that commanders have beyond just one or two exquisite munitions, with everything from longer-range artillery, one-way attack and loitering munitions, up into our higher-end missiles.

All of those represent our fires portfolio, but that’s just for offensive operations. When we get into the defensive side, we’ll be seeing everything from ballistic missiles down to Group One drones.

If you look at those three areas — drones and counter-UAS; software and sensors; and the fires portfolio — and were to roll back the clock to AUSA 10 years ago, the difference is remarkable.

At that time, the focus was very vehicle-centric, armor-centric, pieces of kit for individual soldiers. All of those things are important and are continuing to advance, but these newer investment areas represent a noticeable shift in warfare.

These conflicts are obviously influencing the speed of acquisition. But that process includes an emphasis on both cost-friendly and exquisite munition stockpiles. What is the best balance to ensure success?

The conflicts are definitely influencing and accelerating the way the Army — and certainly the broader Department — are innovating, prototyping, procuring and then fielding different capabilities.

If you were to roll back a decade or even less, you would see very traditional models that go from experimentation into writing an initial requirement document, then into prototyping, then selection, then low-rate production and then finally into fielding and high-rate production.

That’s years long. That process is very deliberate, and it built our military to where it is today, which is still the most dominant, but with a number of vulnerabilities because of technical innovation in the commercial market that adversaries are able to take advantage of.

So, where can we compress this cycle and get it more into a process where we ask the commercial industry to experiment on their dime?

A lot of this has to do with private capital being interested in the defense market. They’re making a bet that they can get through some of the experimentation, and then we can follow on with prototyping and quickly get into low-rate and high-rate production before fielding.

Fielding then allows us to get immediate feedback that goes back into industry. That is essentially what had to happen in Ukraine because it’s existential to them.

So, when we say wartime footing, Ukraine is on the ultimate wartime footing, and there are lessons to draw from there. What are the unnecessary steps in the acquisition process? Where can you smartly accept risk?

Probably one of the biggest drivers of speeding things up is acknowledging that we’re willing to accept risk. We know that if we get a tighter innovation cycle, we’re accepting more risk on the battlefield, but we’re also driving down risk on the battlefield because we’re getting it to them much sooner.

So, then we get into how that translates to fires. Exquisite versus low cost. It’s a balance, or a high-low mix, essentially, where we have to have both offensive and defensive exquisite weapons.

We have to have certain stockpiles to be able to counter the exquisite weapons of our adversaries and have our own effects. Then you get into mass, which comes when we start going beyond the first few days of a conflict, and we’re in protraction. We have to have affordable mass. The cost curve needs to come back in our favor.

While balancing the above, how much of a difference has the surge in domestic manufacturing made in having these pre-positioned elements assisting efforts?

A massive difference.

The Infantry Squad Vehicle is a perfect example. That’s a Chevy Colorado chassis; the drivetrain and suspension are a little different, but it’s nothing unusual.

Essentially, it then goes to a detailer that puts the military-specific equipment on top of it. It’s everything that we need it to be.

As with anything, it has its vulnerabilities. We’re sacrificing heavy armor and survivability, which we needed throughout the GWOT years, for mobility, transportability and ease of repair.

But using this model also allows us to sustain it far more easily because so many of the components are commercial.

It especially matters when you get into keeping the ISV — or domestically made equipment — in the decades ahead and needing improvements over the years. With the ISV, as Chevy makes improvements to its chassis and drivetrain, that immediately feeds back into the production line of ISVs.

So, we’re now getting upgrades that are just byproducts of the commercial market.

With acquisition, there’s a major emphasis on AI. What are you discussing with tech companies to ensure the human-in-the-loop element equates to maintaining final say despite the speed of the tech?

Every company that deals with this emerging technology and the military is of the same mindset, which is that the human-in-the-loop factor has to be the default.

There are workflows and cycles that human commanders can say, “I need this to run in the background, and I don’t need to see it or be on it.” But when it comes to kinetic kill chains and making decisions on the battlefield, the workflows that enable commanders have to have very hard stops.

It’s not just a commander saying yes or no. It’s far more complicated and nuanced. It’s presenting options based on a tremendous amount of computing analysis and saying, “Here are all the courses of action based on the priorities that you gave, based on the environmental factors that the agents have been able to ingest and all of the long-term planning that goes into it.

That allows the commanders to then take highly complex tasks like mission planning and distill it down into areas where they can consume it more easily, and then apply what only humans can do, which is context and reason.

That context and reason part is what the tech companies that work with us are very focused on enabling, as opposed to taking over entire workflows.

Autonomy is important, really, in three areas when it comes to warfighting.

Think about combat breaching. That’s one of the most dangerous things we ask a human to do: to breach a linear minefield or barrier. If we can automate that, that removes something inherently dangerous.

The second is highly complex, like command and control. How do you distill what would take human staff officers hours or days into seconds, and give a commander not only several options, but the analysis behind it and the confidence in the product being presented?

The third is the ability to remove repetitive and mundane things human soldiers are doing. Resupplying via trucks, for instance. If we can automate that, we are removing that task from our logistics soldiers and allowing them to apply their talents to solving real problems with a clear vision and mindset.

Beyond weapon systems, something as simple as staging — or hiding — equipment or personnel requires a vastly different strategy than even 10 years ago. How does something as simple as saying, “How do we hide this helo?” impact your conversations with industry?

It’s not something that we’ve had to truly consider as an Army for 40 or 50 years because we were guaranteed air superiority.

We don’t have air superiority at this point because of long-range fires and precision targeting from space.

So, you go back to dispersion, displacement of assets and disaggregation of large headquarters. As you remember from recent decades, a division headquarters would be a massive entity with satellite dishes and other assets in the open. Those days are gone.

We now have to consider how we bring in technology from the companies to allow us to displace 10-foot satellite dishes and 20 miles of wire, and actually have small-scale edge compute and transport systems that can disaggregate everyone. That’s incredibly important.

Certainly, camouflage comes into play. Other classified capabilities come into play as well, and that’s all just the visible element. Then you get into electronic warfare and the ability to monitor.

So, how do you disaggregate some of that?

Those are all things that we are actively moving — and coming back to — in a more modern stance.

The announcement, made at the annual exposition for the Association of the United States Army, means the service will be increasing its fleet of ISVs by roughly 1,750%.

Company President Steve duMont praised his GM Defense’s ability to deliver on the fast-paced needs of the Army, touting the company’s ability to meet the demands of the “modern defense landscape” with “advanced capability, rapid fielding and sustainable scale.”

“By transferring GM’s world-class engineering, supply chain and manufacturing scale directly to the service member, we are transforming customer needs into mission-ready capability faster than ever before,” duMont said.

To illustrate the pace at which it operates, the company referenced how it delivered PAC-3 Missile Segment Enhancement housing components to Lockheed Martin in just 22 days. The company said the feat shows how “GM’s advanced casting and precision-fabrication capabilities can immediately scale” to deliver critical components.

Ahead of development of the ISV, GM worked closely with the Army to identify “a clear operational gap,” according to the company. It then used the information to self-fund the creation of an ISV-Utility prototype. In turn, the GM Defense delivered seven prototypes of the “highly versatile five-soldier variant” for unit-level assessments “at no cost” to the Army.

The company added that those variants will be fielded across 39 active-duty and National Guard mobile brigades.

Unlike traditional combat vehicles, the ISV does not have armor. In fact, the standard design doesn’t even have doors or windows.

The ISV and ISV-Heavy, which are modeled after GM’s Chevrolet Colorado ZR2 and Chevrolet Silverado HD 3500 ZR2, respectively, are designed to be adapted to changes on the battlefield rather than specific mission sets.

Using lessons learned from Ukraine, Army officials say the ISV will serve as a platform for newly established Mobile Brigade Combat Teams, or MBCTs, which are designed to quickly respond to evolving threats and the demands of large-scale combat operations.

At AUSA, GM Defense also unveiled concepts for an unmanned ground vehicle, or UGV, and an expeditionary energy storage system.

The UGV uses what the company described as “Chevrolet Silverado 3500HD dual-rear-wheel skateboard architecture” and is intended for “silent logistics and casualty evacuation.” GM Defense aims to begin testing the vehicle in 2027.

The company also showcased the EPIQ Hybrid prototype, an Army-inspired expeditionary energy storage system. According to GM Defense, the 60-kilowatt, 100-kilowatt-hour system is paired with an onboard generator designed to reduce thermal and noise signatures.

In a press release, Daryl Atkins, FN’s director for industrialized weapons, said the M240 Tactical Long Rail Upgrade Kit will allow military organizations to continue “taking advantage of the weapon’s proven performance while making it relevant for today’s combat requirements.”

According to the company, the kit preserves the weapon’s original operating system and can be installed on new guns or used to upgrade existing weapons. The kit includes:

• An 11-inch monolithic Picatinny top rail to accommodate night-vision and thermal optics, along with other components;
• An FN Side-Click feed cover designed to make one-handed operation easier;
• An FN Auto-Lock feed cover retention system that holds the cover open during loading, unloading and cleaning;
• A long, articulated carrying handle designed to accommodate full-size optics;
• An adjustable buttstock that allows soldiers to change the length of pull and cheek height or fold the stock for storage.

“With this upgrade kit, modern warfighters can achieve faster target acquisition, more consistent shooter fit and better management of optics, while military organizations can extend the value and relevance of currently fielded platforms,” Atkins said.

FN, the Belgian firearms manufacturer with operations in Virginia and South Carolina, has produced more than 100,000 M240 machine guns for the U.S. military since the 7.62mm weapon entered service in 1977.

However, last year the Army revealed through budget documents that it was investing $3.6 billion in a project, dubbed the Future Medium Machine Gun, or FMMG, to replace the legacy system.

The Army and Marine Corps are also pursuing separate efforts to modernize their squad-level weapons. The Army has begun fielding its M7 and M8 rifles along with the M250 automatic rifle, while the Marine Corps has adopted the M27 Infantry Automatic Rifle as its standard infantry automatic weapon.

Brett Velicovich, the company’s president and co-founder, said in an interview with Military Times that logical product upgrades have been key to the company’s success. He explained how the company’s growth, the evolution of its interceptors and rising U.S. military demand for drone-defense systems amid the war in Iran have converged.

“You know, the U.S. government had a big problem at the beginning of the Iran war, when they sent a bunch of Ukrainian interceptors to the Middle East thinking that it was going to solve a problem,” he said.

According to analysis by the Congressional Budget Office, the U.S. used roughly two-thirds of its inventory of certain missile-defense interceptors by Aug. 1 to stop drones like Iran’s Shahed. Because rebuilding the supply could take years and cost billions, the government has sought quicker and cheaper solutions like those used in Ukraine, but implementing them hasn’t been easy.

“When you go to Ukraine, most of the interceptors, believe it or not, are manually controlled,” he said, explaining that Ukrainian operators are highly skilled at finding and stopping one-way attack drones in the air. “And that’s great for Ukraine, where you could probably throw a rock and hit a drone pilot.”

The problem with the government’s initial thinking, according to Velicovich, was that Ukraine has a “proper drone army,” as the country has “entire brigades that are pilots. So those guys have extreme combat experience in knowing how to take a drone and send it into another drone. In other countries, they don’t.”

With that understanding, Velicovich explained how Powerus provided the U.S. with the Guardian 1 — modeled after manually controlled Ukrainian drone interceptors — to the semi-autonomous Guardian 2, which, when paired with a radar to detect threats, will launch the interceptor in the direction of a drone.

“It’ll know the speed and the telemetry. It’ll launch it in that direction, but you still have to do that final phase of manual kill,” he said.

And finally, Powerus developed the fully autonomous Guardian 3. He explained that when the radar cues it, the system launches in the direction of the threat and can detect and strike using artificial intelligence and navigation systems.

“So you kind of take the human error out of it,” he said.

Velicovich credits this strategy, which he and his team derived from first-hand experience in the military and using drones in combat, to the company’s recent success.

In about one year, Powerus has transformed into a publicly traded company with a market capitalization of nearly $390 million. On Oct. 1, it completed a merger with Aureus Greenway Holdings Inc., a golf course holding company backed by the two eldest Trump sons.

As the U.S. government looks for ways to find low-cost drone interceptors, it’s also looking for low-cost missile interceptors. Power has partnered with the Netherlands-based defense company Destinus to help meet that challenge.

“Destinus brings this just overwhelming, incredible ownership of the technology,” Velicovich said, adding that Powerus will be its “business development channel in the U.S. to sell systems that otherwise had not really been sold here yet.”

He added that Powerus received the demand signal from the Pentagon and aims to deliver.

“We know you’d be crazy not to buy these products because of just how effective they are on the battlefield,” he said.

OASIS-OneLink builds upon Forterra’s OASIS-Fabric, a shared data network that allows unmanned machines to connect in communication-degraded environments where they can’t log onto a shared data grid.

“Requiring operators to start an integration process from scratch every time a new system is introduced is both inefficient and burdensome for the end user,” Phil Cotter, Forterra’s head of growth, told Military Times. “OneLink gives operators one place from which to monitor and command, and it’s designed to grow and adapt as mission requirements change.”

OASIS-Fabric was essentially the internet, but for battlefield products, according to Jenna Tuck, vice president of distributed warfare at Forterra.

While Fabric provided a new way for machines to connect, OneLink provides a new way to control them.

New systems and pieces of technology come with their own operating systems and visual layouts, not unlike different computers or phones.

The same often goes for the military.

If a service member wants to control several different autonomous systems, or if a new one is introduced to the mix, they may have to learn a completely new user interface or remember several different ones while toggling between them.

But OASIS-OneLink would allow several different autonomous machines, potentially all from different companies, to be controlled using the same operating control framework, said Tuck.

This would make switching between them much more seamless and easier for users.

The shared interface could also speed up the testing and evaluation phase before fielding new technology, since it would allow the Defense Department to focus on the performance of new autonomous systems and reduce time otherwise devoted to the tedious mastery of new controls.

The Army’s Joint Readiness Training Center has already begun using OASIS-OneLink to pilot unmanned systems, Forterra said.

Oasis-OneLink wasn’t the only shiny new toy the company showed off at AUSA.

The company unveiled a new autonomous ground vehicle that it created with Hypercraft, integrating its AutoDrive autonomous software platform to form a machine capable of carrying out high-risk missions without endangering soldiers’ lives.

Forterra has a proven track record of supplying cutting-edge technology to support missions in contested environments.

It was the first ground autonomy company to be actively deployed in Ukraine and has deployed for 88 casualty evacuation missions to rescue Ukrainian soldiers from the front lines.

Forterra was also selected by the Army as a prime contractor for its Engineer Autonomous Breaching Capability program focused on the development of unmanned vehicles to assist with mine-clearing in combat zones.

Reuters reported in April that U.S. officials had informed some European counterparts that some previously contracted weapons deliveries were likely to be delayed as the Iran war draws on weapons stocks.

“At this point it looks like we are going to be affected as well. That’s very visible in the area of PAC-3 MSE Patriot missiles, they’re going to be delayed for sure,” Nowak told a panel at the Warsaw Security Forum.

“In general there’s going to be impact and there are going to be… additional delays to the deliveries scheduled already or being under the contract already.”